Global Warming... a hoax?

[tekirdag]

How can politicians make a sensible decision, if they are only fed propaganda?

As someone who has on occasion briefed Ministers (not on climate change or anything to do with the environment I hasten to add) I can assure you that they get their facts from experts not the press.

And the experts are only employed and given grants if they subscribe to AGW. And dissenters are out on their ear or starved of grants.

That's the way the system works, and once you get a self-perpetuating belief system installed in government, it will do just what it says on the tin - perpetuate itself.

.

[chieftiff]

How can politicians make a sensible decision, if they are only fed propaganda?

As someone who has on occasion briefed Ministers (not on climate change or anything to do with the environment I hasten to add) I can assure you that they get their facts from experts not the press.

And the experts are only employed and given grants if they subscribe to AGW. And dissenters are out on their ear or starved of grants.

That's the way the system works, and once you get a self-perpetuating belief system installed in government, it will do just what it says on the tin - perpetuate itself.

.

I think you have either a personality disorder associated with conspiracy or you've been watching too much TV. You certainly don't understand how the research grant system works or the psyche of those who work in science.

[tekirdag]

[
It's really dis-ingenious that he complains that accelerating trends are only shown when using short time scales then does exactly the same thing to show supposed cooling! He fails to note that 1998 experienced exceptionally strong El Nino effects and that there has been predominently La Nina effects since then, and this year is swinging back to El Nino.

Ha - the very El Nino warming that was used to 'prove' Global Warming back in 1998.

As to Monckton, I disagree. He demonstrates that when using the short time scales used by the IPCC, the 1860s and 1920s also showed warming as strong as we saw in the 1980s.

Plus shorter scales show cooling. The IPCC shortest scale is 20 years, while Moncktons is 10 years. Quite equivalent, I would say.

And regards longer scales, he goes to great lengths to prove that the IPCC have fraudulently deleted the Medieval Warming Period. The reason? Because the MWP demonstrates that any recent warming may well be, and probably is, purely natural.



.

[tekirdag]

How can politicians make a sensible decision, if they are only fed propaganda?

As someone who has on occasion briefed Ministers (not on climate change or anything to do with the environment I hasten to add) I can assure you that they get their facts from experts not the press.

And the experts are only employed and given grants if they subscribe to AGW. And dissenters are out on their ear or starved of grants.

That's the way the system works, and once you get a self-perpetuating belief system installed in government, it will do just what it says on the tin - perpetuate itself.

.

I think you have either a personality disorder associated with conspiracy or you've been watching too much TV. You certainly don't understand how the research grant system works or the psyche of those who work in science.

Do you?

Nearly every report I have seen in recent years, wether on climate, weather, habitat, land usage, water resources, or the mating habits of the lesser-spotted gold-crestd newt - all have "... how Global Warming has affected ..." in the title or extract.


It is clear that grants are favourably awarded to any research or report that seeks to confirm Global Warming, however tenuous the link may be. And the probability that that research will be published or reported is also directly linked to its support for Global Warming.

As the BBC blatently says:

"The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets...ury/report.pdf


The Biased Broadcasting Corporation.


.

[StickyEnd]

[
It's really dis-ingenious that he complains that accelerating trends are only shown when using short time scales then does exactly the same thing to show supposed cooling! He fails to note that 1998 experienced exceptionally strong El Nino effects and that there has been predominently La Nina effects since then, and this year is swinging back to El Nino.

Ha - the very El Nino warming that was used to 'prove' Global Warming back in 1998.

As to Monckton, I disagree. He demonstrates that when using the short time scales used by the IPCC, the 1860s and 1920s also showed warming as strong as we saw in the 1980s.

Plus shorter scales show cooling. The IPCC shortest scale is 20 years, while Moncktons is 10 years. Quite equivalent, I would say.

And regards longer scales, he goes to great lengths to prove that the IPCC have fraudulently deleted the Medieval Warming Period. The reason? Because the MWP demonstrates that any recent warming may well be, and probably is, purely natural.



.

FGS! Watch the programmes I linked. It shows the history of all the stuff you are bringing up. It explains why scientists believed what they did, what the evidence shows etc. It is not neutral but it is balanced. But when the result is that all the evidence says the same thing, there is no place for neutrality.

Or continue to plug your ears and shout la la la.

[chieftiff]

Do you?

Yes, unfortunately my job involves primarily bidding for funding in support of development projects, that's not the essence of my job but it is what I spend most of my time doing.

Nobody is going to accept an academic research funding bid based on a pre-conceived idea unless that research is aimed at finding solutions to previous findings, you'll be familiar with the idea of forming and testing a hypothesis. There are incredibly diverse funding lines out there, from direct government funds to huge industry funds and charity funding, I've even tapped into the funds of some private wealthy individuals who seek to support a certain project for whatever reason normally via a charity. There are obviously funding lines to support research into climate change which you infer are only distributed to researchers who will meet the agenda of those funding, well what are those agendas?

The key questions for anyone offering up research funding are: is this research necessary, how will the final papers be interpreted, will they meet the rigours of peer review and will they be credible or will they risk our own good name or prevent us drawing down our own funding in the future because of a loss of credibility, private research then seeks to see what benefits they can gain from the results of the research (think pharmaceuticals, oil, gas, power generation; those who would probably actually benefit from disproving the man made theory, even they have turned to the support of these theories). There is very little room for a partisan stance and research needs to be seen to be worthwhile as well as actually being new research. Research is expensive if it's going to be criticised or scientifically ridiculed the costs are even higher, if it leads to waste in further development funding then someone is going to get sacked and that generally only happens the once.

The whole area isn't quite black and white, in the private sector things get undoubtedly grey, but for those using government funding it certainly is as black and white as the NAO can make it - if you've ever dealt with them you'll know there is black and there is white nothing else matters.

[MikeMcc]

Oh really?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8371773.stm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0302180504.htm
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...w.php?id=41455

Yee gads, you don't believe anything written by the BBC and especially by Richard Black??

If you take a look at the BBC article, Black mutters about East Antarctica, while his diagrams clearly show most reductions are in West Antarctica. Do you believe anything this guy writes?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8371773.stm


But even this reduction has been disputed recently.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-wai101909.php



Meanwhile, back at the West Antarctic ranch, ice levels and thickness has been increasing for some time.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...satellite-era/

Giving a total increase for Antarctica:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/


Or is Richard Black more authoratative than Cryosphere Today?

.

Well done, you excelled yourself:

You linked to the same story I did, you supported it with a link to a webpage that you only clearly skimmed the headline, because it actually supported my comments, then you posted a link to a sceptics site that quotes two professors work but misconstrues it!

Marco Tedesco on melting in Greenland - lower melt rate, but longer duration of melt!
http://climatechangepsychology.blogs...search-on.html

Snow reflects about 80% of incoming radiation. Ice reflects just 40%. So ice absorbs more heat. In Antarctica, melting occurs where the ice sheet meets the ocean. In Greenland, there is more melting over the whole ice sheet. Antarctica has experienced major shelf collapse recently. Mark Tedesco describes what it is known about melting over Greenland and in Antarctica and how he collects data in these extreme conditions.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow...09/2558510.htm

The Nasa web-page describing the results collected by Tedesco and Monaghan:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/..._snowmelt.html

Now I take it your contention lies with this graph:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...anom.south.jpg

I take it you are aware of what happens as glacial ice reaches the sea? So an increase in sea ice is not unusual for melting ice caps.

[MikeMcc]

[
It's really dis-ingenious that he complains that accelerating trends are only shown when using short time scales then does exactly the same thing to show supposed cooling! He fails to note that 1998 experienced exceptionally strong El Nino effects and that there has been predominently La Nina effects since then, and this year is swinging back to El Nino.

Ha - the very El Nino warming that was used to 'prove' Global Warming back in 1998.

As to Monckton, I disagree. He demonstrates that when using the short time scales used by the IPCC, the 1860s and 1920s also showed warming as strong as we saw in the 1980s.

Plus shorter scales show cooling. The IPCC shortest scale is 20 years, while Moncktons is 10 years. Quite equivalent, I would say.

And regards longer scales, he goes to great lengths to prove that the IPCC have fraudulently deleted the Medieval Warming Period. The reason? Because the MWP demonstrates that any recent warming may well be, and probably is, purely natural.



.

El Nino / La Nina don't prove anything one way or the other in terms of global warming because they don't contribute anything to the energy balance as a whole. they shift the distribution of energy between the ocean and atmosphere. Hence the change from purely global warming to climate change. Purely looking at global warming is too simple an approach to the modelling and false (again another thing that pro AGW groups are accused of!).

How can you you criticise the 'science' when you don't even understand that distinction?

[vvaannmmaann]

And now the Ruskies are sticking the boot in.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...hink-tank.html

[doc80905]

Woohoo, it works! I didn't know about that before. Nice and useful. That has been a source of frustration for ages. Cheers.

I've wanted to know that for ages myself. Damn annoying replying to long posts. Problem solved :D

[tekirdag]

[
It's really dis-ingenious that he complains that accelerating trends are only shown when using short time scales then does exactly the same thing to show supposed cooling! He fails to note that 1998 experienced exceptionally strong El Nino effects and that there has been predominently La Nina effects since then, and this year is swinging back to El Nino.

Ha - the very El Nino warming that was used to 'prove' Global Warming back in 1998.

As to Monckton, I disagree. He demonstrates that when using the short time scales used by the IPCC, the 1860s and 1920s also showed warming as strong as we saw in the 1980s.

Plus shorter scales show cooling. The IPCC shortest scale is 20 years, while Moncktons is 10 years. Quite equivalent, I would say.

And regards longer scales, he goes to great lengths to prove that the IPCC have fraudulently deleted the Medieval Warming Period. The reason? Because the MWP demonstrates that any recent warming may well be, and probably is, purely natural.



.

FGS! Watch the programmes I linked. It shows the history of all the stuff you are bringing up. It explains why scientists believed what they did, what the evidence shows etc. It is not neutral but it is balanced. But when the result is that all the evidence says the same thing, there is no place for neutrality.

Or continue to plug your ears and shout la la la.

BBC web videos are not available abroad.

.

[tekirdag]

Oh really?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8371773.stm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0302180504.htm
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...w.php?id=41455

Yee gads, you don't believe anything written by the BBC and especially by Richard Black??

If you take a look at the BBC article, Black mutters about East Antarctica, while his diagrams clearly show most reductions are in West Antarctica. Do you believe anything this guy writes?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8371773.stm


But even this reduction has been disputed recently.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-wai101909.php

Meanwhile, back at the West Antarctic ranch, ice levels and thickness has been increasing for some time.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...satellite-era/

Giving a total increase for Antarctica:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/


Or is Richard Black more authoratative than Cryosphere Today?

.

Well done, you excelled yourself:

You linked to the same story I did, you supported it with a link to a webpage that you only clearly skimmed the headline, because it actually supported my comments, then you posted a link to a sceptics site that quotes two professors work but misconstrues it!

Marco Tedesco on melting in Greenland - lower melt rate, but longer duration of melt!
http://climatechangepsychology.blogs...search-on.html
.

I linked back to the article you posted to show other readers of this thread what you were on about, and how misguided Richard Black of the BBC is. I thought that would be obvious to every simpleton on the planet.

The second article I posted correctly talks about West Antarctica, and not the nonsense regarding East Antarctica that Black was wittering on about.

A word of advice. Take everything the BBC writes and broadcasts with a sackful of salt.


.

[tekirdag]

[
It's really dis-ingenious that he complains that accelerating trends are only shown when using short time scales then does exactly the same thing to show supposed cooling! He fails to note that 1998 experienced exceptionally strong El Nino effects and that there has been predominently La Nina effects since then, and this year is swinging back to El Nino.

Ha - the very El Nino warming that was used to 'prove' Global Warming back in 1998.

As to Monckton, I disagree. He demonstrates that when using the short time scales used by the IPCC, the 1860s and 1920s also showed warming as strong as we saw in the 1980s.

Plus shorter scales show cooling. The IPCC shortest scale is 20 years, while Moncktons is 10 years. Quite equivalent, I would say.

And regards longer scales, he goes to great lengths to prove that the IPCC have fraudulently deleted the Medieval Warming Period. The reason? Because the MWP demonstrates that any recent warming may well be, and probably is, purely natural.



.

El Nino / La Nina don't prove anything one way or the other in terms of global warming because they don't contribute anything to the energy balance as a whole. nd false (again another thing that pro AGW groups are accused of!).

How can you you criticise the 'science' when you don't even understand that distinction?

Not sure what your point is here. Read my post again - I did not say anything about Nino's proving anything. Of course they do not add to total warming, every numbskull knows that.

I merely pointed out that the '98 event was held up as the pinnacle of Global Warming by the media, back in '98, when most of this warming was merely El Nino.


.

[MikeMcc]

Oh really?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8371773.stm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0302180504.htm
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...w.php?id=41455

Yee gads, you don't believe anything written by the BBC and especially by Richard Black??

If you take a look at the BBC article, Black mutters about East Antarctica, while his diagrams clearly show most reductions are in West Antarctica. Do you believe anything this guy writes?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8371773.stm


But even this reduction has been disputed recently.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-wai101909.php

Meanwhile, back at the West Antarctic ranch, ice levels and thickness has been increasing for some time.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...satellite-era/

Giving a total increase for Antarctica:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/


Or is Richard Black more authoratative than Cryosphere Today?

.

Well done, you excelled yourself:

You linked to the same story I did, you supported it with a link to a webpage that you only clearly skimmed the headline, because it actually supported my comments, then you posted a link to a sceptics site that quotes two professors work but misconstrues it!

Marco Tedesco on melting in Greenland - lower melt rate, but longer duration of melt!
http://climatechangepsychology.blogs...search-on.html
.

I linked back to the article you posted to show other readers of this thread what you were on about, and how misguided Richard Black of the BBC is. I thought that would be obvious to every simpleton on the planet.

The second article I posted correctly talks about West Antarctica, and not the nonsense regarding East Antarctica that Black was wittering on about.

A word of advice. Take everything the BBC writes and broadcasts with a sackful of salt.


.

In your mind maybe, not when it's backed up by the supporting sites. You just can't admit that you screwed up by using links that actually show that you are wrong.

From that second site that you are crowing about:

"Our work suggests that while West Antarctica is still losing significant amounts of ice, the loss appears to be slightly slower than some recent estimates,"

[MikeMcc]

[
It's really dis-ingenious that he complains that accelerating trends are only shown when using short time scales then does exactly the same thing to show supposed cooling! He fails to note that 1998 experienced exceptionally strong El Nino effects and that there has been predominently La Nina effects since then, and this year is swinging back to El Nino.

Ha - the very El Nino warming that was used to 'prove' Global Warming back in 1998.

As to Monckton, I disagree. He demonstrates that when using the short time scales used by the IPCC, the 1860s and 1920s also showed warming as strong as we saw in the 1980s.

Plus shorter scales show cooling. The IPCC shortest scale is 20 years, while Moncktons is 10 years. Quite equivalent, I would say.

And regards longer scales, he goes to great lengths to prove that the IPCC have fraudulently deleted the Medieval Warming Period. The reason? Because the MWP demonstrates that any recent warming may well be, and probably is, purely natural.



.

El Nino / La Nina don't prove anything one way or the other in terms of global warming because they don't contribute anything to the energy balance as a whole. nd false (again another thing that pro AGW groups are accused of!).

How can you you criticise the 'science' when you don't even understand that distinction?

Not sure what your point is here. Read my post again - I did not say anything about Nino's proving anything. Of course they do not add to total warming, every numbskull knows that.

I merely pointed out that the '98 event was held up as the pinnacle of Global Warming by the media, back in '98, when most of this warming was merely El Nino.


.

Oh really:

the very El Nino warming that was used to 'prove' Global Warming back in 1998